It is currently not allowed to offer taxi services without a permit (and related stuff: insurance, markings on the car etc. depending on EU-country).Work to change the law before you start the business.

There are lots of things you can't do without certification/permits/etc. If your plan is to fuck it all then you ARE working outside of the law. (car analogy: building your own car and not approving it - or in tax-insane Finland: paying car import tax on the burocrat-estimated worth of your self-built car).

Well, for one thing, taxis are required to give rides to everybody, even people of different faiths/colors/nationalities. They're required to provide services to handicapped passengers, for another. And they're required to go basically anywhere the passenger wants to go. The last two issues often increase costs, which are then leveled across all customers - making it "easy" to compete if you only take the juicy fares, leaving the other ones stranded. Additionally, there are penalties in place for driver

Why the scare quotes around 'criminal organisation'? Uber's business model is to break the laws of every country they operate in and then hoping that the authorities are too timid to crack down on them. That by definition makes them a criminal organisation.

In an attempt to cut through the bullshit of what *might* happen and work directly from evidence, I came across a report of [usnews.com] a Cato institute study:

A Cato Institute study shows key differences between rideshare services and taxis, but passenger safety isn't one of them.

The other differences are not as important and will probably get solved by other means. For example, cleanliness of the ride, courtesy of the driver, and gypping the customer can be handled by the Uber feedback system.

The economists here are quick to point out the importance of liquidity, and Uber adds much needed liquidity to the taxi system.

Can anyone justify the expense and bureaucracy of taxi medallions when passenger safety isn't an issue?

The taxi medallion issue comes up frequently here on Slashdot, especially in support of Uber - except many countries dont have medallions or the costs associated with them. Here in the UK, to become a licensed taxi in my local area, it will cost you less than £3000 in fees every four years - wheres the excuse for Uber to be operating unlicensed in the same location?

What you are describing is the difference between a taxi that can pick up from ranks and off the street, and a taxi that is pre-booked only (also called a private hire vehicle). Both still need to be licensed in all locales in the UK.

You can probably stop there. The Cato Institute was founded by Charles Koch and while it proposes to be solely Libertarian it often leans Right. Any "analysis" they perform must be taken with a grain of salt. I'm not saying they're wrong, but what they publish cannot be detached from their public and, more importantly, private agendas.

The Cato Institute was founded by Charles Koch and while it proposes to be solely Libertarian it often leans Right.

Libertarianism means free markets, freedom of association, and individual liberties. Yes, in the US these days, that means "leaning right", because the American left has abandoned those principles. FFS, we have a self-declared socialist running as a serious Democratic candidate.

I'm not saying they're wrong, but what they publish cannot be detached from their public and, more importantly, privat

Yes and that is that taxis are part of a municipal areas public transport planning. It is taxi stands and rules against refusing a fare. It is fixed prices and centralised complaint procedures. It is holding them to a higher standard than a piss weak feedback system.

Can anyone justify the expense and bureaucracy of taxi medallions when passenger safety isn't an issue?

Medallions are an outdated system that may have made sense at that time. However what we're talking about here (the examples of Ubers illegal practice in this article) isn't medallions. So no I, and I doubt many others, would even try and justify the medallion system but that doesn't mean that licensing on some level can't be justified on reasons beyond passenger safety.

Some examples of things that it might be justified to control via licensing (other than passenger safety):
Driver insurance
Passenger insurance
Pedestrian safety
Emissions
Traffic Control
Availability of transport for the disabled/elderly
Availability of transport to/from less popular locations
Quality of service (especially in high tourist areas)

I'm glad services like Uber exist as they bring more competition, but that doesn't mean that I agree with Uber's desire for an unregulated free for all.

It's not only about perceived safety from driver abuse, safe driving etc. Regulations are there -- at least in some european countries, like Germany for example -- to ensure a standard of operating safetey, both from technical and commercial point of view.

For example, regulated taxis have stricter requirements with regards to technical maintenance. This is something you generally want! Just think about that for a moment: every time you take a ride, you're otherwise getting into some stranger's car, which

The unlatched door was in Paris and the torn seatbelt in New York. German taxis were generally above the US average.

Give it 5-10 years or whenever the current Uber drivers have to get a new one.

It doesn't work like this - Uber driver's car actually has to meet Uber's standards, a bad car will be quickly banned from the system. By now it's been two years since Uber got big and I don't see any deterioration in their car quality, and I use Uber a lot in different cities in several countries.

And that provides absolutely no benefit above the current German system. Not all the world has as terrible taxis as the US. I've never been in a poor German taxi - they're usually always recent Mercedes, clean, working well, and the drivers are well insured and well trained (including basic medical training). If Uber has found fault in any country's system, they should fix the system instead of stomping around like a petulant toddler demanding the whole world bows to its demands, screaming when they are t

How about these requirements that taxi companies have to adhere to.- Availability of handicap accessible vehicles.- Minimum number of cars on the road.- Minimum wages for drivers.- Vehicle inspections. I know safety may not be an issue now but give it a few years when Uber drivers wear out their current cars but can not afford a new one.- The requirement to pick up anyone regardless of race, colour, gender, etc.- A company responsible for the behavior of the driver. Uber is not as they say their review system will handle it. It may in the long run by there is no one to make drivers clean up their act.Right now Uber is in a honeymoon state. Most of their drivers are happy and courteous. Wait about ten years when drivers have been jaded by low fares and bad customers. Then there will be even worse problems finding a cab. Today's regulations didn't just spring out of thin air. They were built up over years to deal with issues in the industry. Uber ignores those regulations and therefore their costs are lower.

For example, cleanliness of the ride, courtesy of the driver, and gypping the customer can be handled by the Uber feedback system.

It works until Uber gets too many complaints and they can not keep enough drivers on the road to service their customers. When making a choice between minor complaints and not enough drivers Uber will probably ignore the complaints.

Liquidity is way overrated. This obsession with liquidity led to financial innovation like CDOs. Often a focus to increase liquidity mis-calculates risk and overlooks the trade-off.

For a local transportation services, I'd prefer price consistency over a step-improvement in efficiency by liquidity measures like surge pricing. Dual-rate peak pricing is only acceptable because it is consistently applied at a fixed schedule.

I don't know. How do you feel about Mafia during prohibition? Looks like a better fitted analogy.

Not really, The argument given was "Period.", that doesn't leave room for pick'n'choose.Regardless of if it was intended or not that comment essentially argued for North Korea laws being just.

You have to be pretty damn ignorant to think state a tautology like "a law is a law".Either you mean it literally, and then it is just as useful as saying "a car is a car", or you mean it in the sense of that laws always are just, and in that case you claim that there is no distinction between laws and ethics which cle

I felt she went the correct way, protested, then the law was repelled by ballot. Now it is up to ubber. If they want to pretend doing civil right, good for them, but they WILL get the law punishment. Up to them to prove in appeal court it was a civil right matter or a civil protest. good luck on that one. Civil protest means that you are intentionally breaking the law and accept the consequence. Good for them. But it is still breaking the law.

Doesn't matter. A law is a law. Period.
Apropos of nothing, how do you feel about Rosa Parks not moving to the back of the bus?

I see that a lot of slashdot readers fail at reading comprehension and at basic logic. The above poster is NOT comparing Uber to Rosa Parks. They are pointing out that the argument "A law is a law. Period." applies against the actions of Rosa Parks as well. Or in other words, you have to explain why what Uber is doing is wrong, but what Rosa Parks was doing was not (unless of course, you think that what what Rosa Parks did WAS wrong).

There are others on here who ARE making arguments about why what Uber is

So you admit to trolling the forum? "Fighting emotions with emotions?" Then you are no better than the people you are trying to fight.

If you want to fight with facts or analysis, don't come up with cheap shots, come up with facts and analysis by yourself.

Speaking of facts: how do you know that these "fukin' law-breakers" commenters are angry taxi drivers? Perhaps they are just like me, EU citizens that don't like that a foreign company come over here and piss all over our welfare system (yes, the one giving me education and healthcare, that is paid by taxes, the same taxes Uber et al are trying to skirt with their "disruptive technology") because they want to make a profit. Anyone can undercut someone else if they stop worrying about laws, regulations or moral consequences, there is nothing new about that. Where I live taxis are plentiful and unless a special event is happening, getting a taxi is as easy as picking up your phone. The cab is there before I can get my jacket on and walk down to the door. Most big taxi companies here already have their apps, so you don't have to worry about using your phone to make an actual call to a living person. What does Uber offer me? Cheaper rides. There are already illegal cabs offering that service if the price is all you care about. Still, Uber is trying to get into the scene by not employing drivers (thus not paying taxes/healthcare for them) because it will be more profitable for them. But not for the city I live in and it's inhabitants.

I find forums like these are equally filled with Uber fanbois unquestionably hailing the new economy and thinking other cities/countries should bow down to the Uber overlords that has given us backwards living cavemen the illumination of divine insight. These fanboys were here long before the "fukin' law-breaker" commenters started showing up and those with Uber-opposing views were quite moderate in their choice of words when criticising Uber. Might one have given birth to the other? I too get fed up when I hear the same things over and over again. I understand that some people finally stop trying to be civil and start using explicatives.

Some laws and regulations might be wrong, but as a company you either adhere to them or face the consequences, which Uber now is doing. And while on the subject of civil disobedience, facing the consequence IS the desired effect. As an individual you can oppose the law with the intention of being brought to justice, hoping that the judicial system will expose the unjust laws and change them. This is allowed since you yourself are willing to take the risk. If you are found right, laws are changed and you are potentially freed. If wrong, you face the consequences of breaking the law.

If you do "civil disobedience" and have no intention of getting caught/changing the system, you are just a law-breaker that thinks the laws are dumb and cannot call the "civil disobedience card".

No, it was an excellent analogy to rebut someone's argument that "A law is a law. Period". The entire point of the Rosa Park counter is to highlight that something being a law in no way, just by that fact, justifies a position.

What Uber is doing is wrong not because it's against the law, but because the laws it breaks are laws that the population in general see as being at least acceptable. If a state made giving lifts to abortion clinics illegal then I'm sure plenty of people would be raving about their principled stand if Uber refused to stop doing it.

"Time for tech companies to consider moving their European offices elsewhere?"

how about, Time for tech companies to stop thinking local laws don't fucking apply to them. Either obey the law, fight to get the laws changed or get the fuck out of the market. NO company should get to decide what laws they will and won't obey, that is a slippery slope that no one wants to be on.

How about, Time for tech companies to stop thinking local laws don't fucking apply to them. Either obey the law, fight to get the laws changed or get the fuck out of the market.

How about, "Time for taxi drivers to stop posting drivel and stop using "fuck" in every sentence?

The basis of law is justice. When laws are seen to be unjust, they are often struck down through the efforts of concerted civil disobedience. Prime examples are Rosa Parks not moving to the back of the bus, Martin Luthor's sit-ins, and the Boston Tea Party.

There, see that above? The section in bold? That's called an argument.

An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

that is a fallacious argument. You have incorrectly associated an individuals right to civil disobedience with the rights of a company. A company is not a citizen and as such it cannot commit civil disobedience. The world would be a very bad place if companies got to decide on laws, companies don't have the individual consequences associated with civil disobedience.

that is a fallacious argument. You have incorrectly associated an individuals right to civil disobedience with the rights of a company. A company is not a citizen and as such it cannot commit civil disobedience. The world would be a very bad place if companies got to decide on laws, companies don't have the individual consequences associated with civil disobedience.

Hmm...

So by that logic, the New York Times shouldn't have published the Pentagon Papers [wikipedia.org], and the Guardian shouldn't have published Edward Snowden's [wikipedia.org] revelations.

Freedom of the press is not the same as civil disobedience which is not the same as a company ignoring laws.

Point of order: there are no federal shield laws for journalists in the U.S.. Just because there is freedom of the press written into the bill of rights, does not mean that you can not be held legally accountable for what you print.

The common argument is "yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theater", which is commonly misinterpreted as stating that the yelling itself is illegal; it is not, it is protected by "freedom of speech"; the consequences *may* however be something you can have your ass thrown into jail ov

Again Rosa Parks openly admitted that what she did was illegal. She didn't do it for profit. And she was willing to go to jail. If Uber did those three things (with the execs going to jail, not the drivers), you would have a point. Rosa Parks acted to improve society. Uber acts to improve their bottom line. The two are not comparable in any way.

because people tend to be sheep when it comes to corporate welfare & protection laws. everyone likes to drag out the image of the poor uneducated taxi driver trying to make ends meet, not the corporation that actually owns his license and rents it to him.

They certainly are, the amount of sheep running out to protect Uber is absurd. They need to remember this next time a company they don't like decides the law shouldn't apply to them, you can bet they will be bleeting like sheep for the government to step in.

Can we not take each situation on it's merits, rather than throwing around sheep of various types? I feel ambiguous about Uber, I understand that government regulations are supposed to be for my protection. And yet Uber offers a better service. I think the regulations probably need an overhaul. I can't help but think that the furore is mostly sour grapes from a taxi industry that doesn't want to be challenged.

Can we not take each situation on it's merits, rather than throwing around sheep of various types? I feel ambiguous about Uber, I understand that government regulations are supposed to be for my protection. And yet Uber offers a better service. I think the regulations probably need an overhaul. I can't help but think that the furore is mostly sour grapes from a taxi industry that doesn't want to be challenged.

No I don't believe we can. Companies don't get to make decisions on what laws to obey, I don't believe their is any fuzzy or grey area here. Not saying I agree with all the various laws and regulations but the way for a company is to go to the courts, go to the politicians or appeal to the public to partition the politicians for them to change the laws/regulations or decide to obey the laws or don't do business in that country.

I see Uber as some pricks driven by greed who are going to inspire laws that will make it illegal for passengers to put in for fuel money on long trips.Ride sharing has been around for a very long time (even via the net) and has been fine, until now some leeches are getting involved, taking a cut and deliberately stirring up governments.

What doesn't Uber understand about municipal codes? Yes, taxi service sucks, but just because I think I want to get to work faster doesn't mean I can break the speed limit. We have laws for a reason; if Uber wants to compete,it has to compete according to the LAW. If it wants to change the law, the ballot is where that should happen. After all, Uber is lining the pockets of politicians now, anyway - to let them help Uber break the law. It's absurd.

Dutch Taxis don't suck, it's a well regulated market, they're clean, consistent and safe.They're also well integrated into the public transport system. And Netherlands has a bunch of laws you have to comply with.

Uber has its own rules, and its own codes, and surge pricing and fake maps and god view spy app, and so on, and none of this fits in within the laws of the Netherlands.

There are car sharing companies that comply with Dutch law, e.g. GreenWheels is all across Holland. Uber just needs to stop behaving

I agree. When I compare the actual service I get in the average taxi compared to before 2000 (when the current regulation was instated) things have improved markedly, at least here in Amsterdam. It's expensive, but then, it always was, even before the current regulations, at least now there's some associated costs that justify the price.

In the Netherlands we mostly have a mix of semi free market and government regulation.The government sets the ground rules and free competition is possible within that platform.

Taxi drivers have to obey by many strict laws. Uber "taxis" do not.The current position of the government is that Uber poses unfair competition as Uber users do not comply with the regulation required for Taxi drivers while essentialy offering the same services.

Technically, if Uber can make their drivers comply to the Taxi driver rules the app would be no problem.Much of the advantage would be lost in the process though..And it's a bit of a killer for innovation and keeps prices high.Personally i like the sharing culture Uber promotes.But i don't think the attitude towards Uber taxis will change anytime soon.

Personally i like the sharing culture Uber promotes.
But i don't think the attitude towards Uber taxis will change anytime soon.

And you might change that opinion if you are ever in an accident while being a passenger in an Uber 'taxi' and it turns out he's missing all the liability insurance that are requisite for any form of public transport company in the netherlands and it turns out his personal insurance doesn't cover 'professional services' as every consumer car insurance policy in the Netherlands does.

Uber is "ride sharing" in the same way pizza delivery is "food sharing". Namely it is not. With Uber you hire a vehicle and driver to take you from one location to another. There is no "sharing" involved. Sharing would be if the driver planned to go from A to B and picked up someone else who happened to be going the same way. For example, many non-profit commuter services are ride sharing as do just that. That is not what Uber does.Being an Uber driver is a part time job and nothing else.

The Netherlands have taxi laws because every time we tried deregulating taxis, the deregulated taxi services cropping up were a bunch of criminals who wouldn't balk at overcharging and intimidating and/or assaulting their passengers and other drivers.

People working as musicians and sound engineers know 'sharing culture' as 'we will never get paid again, because mp3s replaced all the superior media people used to pay money to have'. These things cut various ways, and while your classic Stallman type 'code ideas are free' sharing is clearly about promoting understanding and collective knowledge for the betterment of all, in a capitalist system that is only one of many values to be weighed.

Get rid of money and you'll see 'sharing culture'. Using 'sharing culture' to help a psychotic corporation obliterate the world's applecart as far as livery services, is an exploit and has nothing to do with the 'collective knowledge' thing anymore.

...in some countries. They're openly breaking the law. However - where regulations are faulty or problematic hampering the freedom of providing a valued service to the populace, this type of disruption is the only way to drive forward new growth markets and change 'the way' it is. Just because something is averse to a current corporate/government structure doesn't make it bad, although it is in many cases criminal.

I'd be curious about stats of Uber users - is it just a loud minority who aim their sites at the company? I'm guessing it is. Everyone I know who uses Uber loves it, and while I feel for the taxi drivers who pay into medallions or permits to drive cabs, markets....get.....disrupted......and this is a f'n good disruption.

More like the high cost of medallions is the free market assigning value.

Back when there was no limit on the number of taxis, there was thirty thousand taxis in New York, all breaking down and crappy. The medallions are literally about fixing the number of taxis, because when the free market decided how many taxis there should be, it clogged all the streets with taxis and New York City broke.

I realize it's a scary and new thought that the free market can cough up a totally wrong answer, but that's what happened. More often than not, the free market coughs up a hairball rather than an optimal answer, mostly because it cannot cope with externalities: it's short-term like the stock market.

How many times do we have to go through this nonsense? I'll give you this, however, it's good at 'disrupting'. Too bad that's not long-term useful.

" (read: without the authorities earning money from the practice)" no that is called breaking the law. You may not like the law, but it is the law.Work to have it repelled or Stuff up. Break the law ? Then get what's coming at you. How worked up would you be if companies started seeing EPA or FDA rules as "stuff the authorities made up for earning money from the practice" ? Like for example checking for salmonella in peanut butter and withdrawing it from circulation if contaminated ? Same difference, the du

and fresh allegations that the company would act as a "criminal organization" by offering a platform for taxi rides without license (read: without the authorities earning money from the practice)

Nice one there.

Get the anti-gubermint crowd by emphasizing the criminal organization definition of Uber.(YEAH! Fuck you Holland and your German laws! You don't get to decide what constitutes a legal definition of a criminal organization in your country!).

Then get the pro-regulation crowd by insinuating that paying taxes, tariffs etc. and submitting to regulation is somehow just a legal racket by "the authorities".(YEAH! Fuck you regulatory gubermint bodies! I WANT to live in a Blade Runner-like dystopia. Minus the tech, replicants, flying cars, Vangelis soundtrack and unicorns.)

It's almost as if both the "anonymous reader" and Soulskill love watching their mom being double-teamed so much they just can't get the idea of getting it both ways out of their head.What? It's a flamebait story and topic.Decorum and protocol dictate the mention of management's and submitters Nazi whore mothers.

We've all been through it - can't get a cab. It's sometime AM, you need a cab and the driver refuses to take you. From my understanding of 'Common Carrier' law it is illegal for them to refuse a fare, just as much as it is illegal for Uber to operate.

Taxi operations are used to having all of the power and now that Uber has come along (despite some minor reservations I have with the service) I'm glad they are kicking the Taxi industries ass. I've noticed that now Taxis have improved their service because Uber is here.

I suspect that once Uber is gone - Taxi services will become much worse. If Uber is going to be banned then I would like to see the penalties for the Taxi industry increase because if they did what they were supposed to do, then Uber would not exist.

Government has been struggling and failing miserably to organize taxi's in a decent way for so long. Now a great way to organize comes along and what do they do? Makes you think all that struggling was just to sell taxi licenses. The best solution would obviously be to buyback all the licenses and let everybody work through an Uber-like system. But that would cost money...

Amazon Flex won't release their contract. My email exchange with them resulted in this reply:

"When you come to our onboarding session and download the app, you can review the Terms of Service. "

Why should I make any sort of commitment before seeing the contract? What if I have to sign an NDA so I canot share the information? They could easily post it on their website, after all they are a tech company. I feel like they do not want to deal on a level playing field with me.

But since the existing taxi companies and governments have zero interest in improving taxi services, doesn't that mean we'll have no innovation in transportation for hundreds of years? What procedure does the govt offer for new companies to test and sell their services. They should create a quota to allow new, innovative transportation services to come into existence.

Err, why do you think that Uber is superior? Surge pricing during a Tube strike is a real bitch, as is the difficulty in arranging for a guaranteed 5am pick-up for the airport arranged the night before.

As a cyclist in London I've been having a lot of trouble recently with bad drivers all in Toyota Priuses with mobile phones on their dashboards. Simply coincidence that this has happened and got worse with the rise in popularity of Uber? These drivers are worse than the dickheads in the black Addison Lee vans. I'm all for some government regulation and taxation for these arseholes.

Err, why do you think that Uber is superior? Surge pricing during a Tube strike is a real bitch, as is the difficulty in arranging for a guaranteed 5am pick-up for the airport arranged the night before.

As a cyclist in London I've been having a lot of trouble recently with bad drivers all in Toyota Priuses with mobile phones on their dashboards. Simply coincidence that this has happened and got worse with the rise in popularity of Uber? These drivers are worse than the dickheads in the black Addison Lee vans. I'm all for some government regulation and taxation for these arseholes.

Because the alternative to Uber and surge pricing is nobody being there to pick you up......due to artificial scarcity of "government approved" taxis

Maybe in your area, but that's not my experience. Their prices and availability are so random that it's not reasonable to make plans around them. I can imagine how much worse they'd get if they didn't have to compete with regular taxi and private hire car firms.

Lol! I've missed planes several times because taxi companies were not able to provide transportation, even though I arranged it well in advance. And they are not responsible for anything - after all, what are you going to do?

I'm European, specifically a Finn. I've never had taxi miss a reserved time. Their responsibility if they do is in fact written into the law, and I have a right under customer protection legislation to demand recompense if they clearly accepted the order.

Of course, around here taxi companies are considered part of public transit infrastructure, and are also tasked with things like driving children in sparsely populated rural areas to schools, ferrying elderly and disabled and so on. They're expensive, but you get the quality you pay for.

I suspect the reason why you have these complaints is because there isn't enough regulation on taxi services in your country.

For those of you on slashdot who would have the audacity to not be familiar with how things in America are:

1) 3/4 of Americans have probably never ridden in a Taxi. Unless you live in one of a handful of major metropolitan areas chances are you have never used a taxi service. Most American cities do not have Taxi stands, if they have one it is at the airport, this is in part because most American cities have virtually no pedestrians, other than those Other people. Taxis in most American cities are highly un

Err, why do you think that Uber is superior? Surge pricing during a Tube strike is a real bitch, as is the difficulty in arranging for a guaranteed 5am pick-up for the airport arranged the night before.

No one is outlawing Uber. That is a false allegation. Uber is, and always has been, an illegal service. They knowingly and willingly disregarded the laws applying to pretty much every aspect of their business, and now are playing the unjustly persecuted role because those laws are being enforced after repeated warnings that they would be.

You mean fuck the Dutch government for abolishing the taxi cartels in 2000 ?

Uber is as always trying to avoid the costs of running a business by skirting around proper insurance, standardised equipment and related local laws. Even if there was an artificially high cost of entry into the market (which I could find no hint of) it would be hard to keep an international giant like Uber from operating legally.

People on slashdot go all moist about Uber because they love the technology it uses. They don't care that Uber also ignores all the laws put there to protect passengers and drivers.

The solution is for proper taxi firms to use the same technology. It's not unusual for the established organisations to be slow off the mark on these things, and for an upstart new-entrant to make the running. If Uber was just adding tech to the business that would be great, but they also decided to break the regulations that are there for good reason. And why are they doing that? Not for anyone else's benefit. But because it's cheaper and easier for them to pretend the rules don't apply to them.

Everybody knows what they are getting and that the usual "protections" from a government-licensed taxi service don't apply.

Really? I don't believe this to be true, and your argument from this point on fails because of it. Everyone doesn't know that they are not getting the protection of a licensed taxi. Maybe they don't know anything about Uber other than it provides what they understand to be taxis. Maybe their friend ordered the car and they think they're getting in a taxi?

And there are many regulations that people are legally not allowed to "opt out" of. For instance, I'm sure that many would be happy to build their house without following building regulations. Much cheaper. But they're not given that option. Many would be happy to accept a supply of gas from an unregulated supplier. All those rules add to the cost, and if you're prepared to accept the risks why not? Except the law is sometimes there to protect people from their own folly.

It's more than that, and you know it. Uber are choosing to have their drivers operate outside the local rules. Their drivers do not have insurance for passengers, and they do not have full background checks performed. So fuck yourself instead, moron.

Uber are more than welcome to compete, but like all the other companies, they have to adhere to the local laws. They have a system that works, they merely need to play by the rules.

Don't like the laws? The fuck off back to Murica, you won't be missed.

Who would stop people from buying superior transportation services on a voluntary basis?

For every example I hear of of government/'the taxi industry' trying to unfairly crush Uber there's another example of Uber blatantly ignoring safety/insurance etc laws that seem to be pretty widely supported. Maybe they'd get more sympathy when unfair things happen to them if they weren't dicks half the time.

Also, as frustrating as the occasional anti-Uber posters are they have nothing on the pro-Uber zealots who jum

You can't just go into countries and ignore their rules with your service. Especially ignoring the safety rules does not make you friends, and that taxi cartel story is also only true in half of the countries.

You can't just go into countries and ignore their rules with your service.

That is exactly what they have done and making friends with the top end of town in each place is how they have done it. It's a bit much seeing them act like everywhere is a third world shithole with easily bribed officials, and even worse when it seems to be working.It's not so much capitalism at work as medieval style oligarchy - if it were possible to have dozens of Uber clones instead of this thing bulldozing it's way through that

Mostly, the 'taxiwet' (cab law) was instated as a quality assurance mechanism. A way to ensure that a driver actualy knew his way around town and wouldn't (at least inadvertently) rip off his passengers.
Currently, the law is being changed to allow for companies like Uber to compete effectively, but there's still a prequisite for drivers to hand over a 'VOG', which is wat for an employer to check if a (possibly future) employee has broken any laws in their field in the past, it costs a whooping 25 euro's an

jcr, you're a regular poster as am I, you're a level headed guy, but as an ex taxi driver I have to say you have your head up your arse on this one.

IMO Uber are the worst kind of rent seeker, the kind that prey on people who are desperate enough to sign up as a driver. Uber's over-inflated "market value" has to collapse because at some point the "market" will become bored with the legal battles over 'freedom' and want a real ROI. I don't have any pity for the investors, just the honest drivers who go in with a reliable car and no money, and come out a year or two later with an unroadworthy clunker, and still no money.

If you think I'm exaggerating, the oldest taxi I ever drove was 5yrs off the showroom floor, it had 1.1 million kilometers on the clock, only the body work was original, even the seat sliders had been replaced at least once. Unless the Uber driver is also a mechanic, it would be cheaper for them to buy a 'runout-model' used car once a year. Most taxi's are a one man / one car operations, they lease/rent it to another regular driver or two to keep it on the road 24X7, and buying a 'new' car once every year or so is how they handle the entropy problem. They don't earn a lot of money, the 'plates' (medallion in the US) is the taxi owner's superannuation. The "hidden costs" are the reason Uber refuses to play by the rules, driving a cab doesn't pay enough to satisfy them so they insert themselves in the middle, they even "generously" offer to pay the drivers fines while at the same time offloading all the real costs onto the poor sap.

Also they are not a 'taxi' company as they would like you to think, in most places they are a traditional 'limo' company using sub-contractors, fuck me they were around when I was driving in the 80's, nobody had heard of the internet but we did have phones. Limos can't be flagged down, nor can they use taxi rank infrastructure. Using sub-contractors and ordering it on a computer is hardly revolutionary, so it's not the regulations that are broken, it's Uber's business model. For good reasons it was illegal before the internet was born, "on a computer" doesn't change that.

Actually the Dutch taxi market is pretty open nowadays, with several thousand not affiliated taxis in Amsterdam only. But the Netherlands is a pretty regulated country. For driving a taxi for example you need a license (easily obtainable) and there are fixed tariff regulations. Obviously Uber drivers have no such license and don't comply with the tariff regulation. I don't know any democratic nation where an organization which actively organizes and supports activities which don't comply with the law is not seen as a criminal organization.Doesn't mean that Uber won't be seen as a kind of emancipationary club somewhere down the line. But now...